To me this was yet another proof that Google became too big for what it is, and on an individual level dealing with Google is harder and less pleasant than dealing with a cable company.
I don't think 'too big' is a good description for the fundamental problem. The real problem is that Google's business model has always relied on razor thin margins, and so it only makes a profit if it automates all of it's business processes. This works well for the vast majority of use cases, but when you get an edge case, such as yours their systems just aren't set up to to deal with it.
Rather than increase the complexity of their business processes they have made an explicit decision to just not care about those edge cases, even if it means that people caught by those edge cases are unable to use Google products. With automated processes they can still serve 95% of the people who want to use Google services, at a much reduced cost than if they tried to serve 100% of customers.
I don't think there is a simple solution to this. Google are too dominant in several areas to be replaced by competitors easily. And I can't see a feasible way to make them not have a financial desire to just ignore "edge case" customers. But yes, Google are at least a little bit evil in making the internet much harder to use for people who they can't easily make money from.